11 Davis contends that, unless Millikan can show he consented to an employer-employee relationship with Cadet, he is subject to suit as a third party under RCW 51.24.030(1). The statutory bar to suit arises when (1) the employer has the right to control the employee's conduct in the performance of duties and (2) there is consent by the employee to this relationship. In such circumstances, the injured worker may seek damages from the third party. 9 One exception is where injury is caused by a third party not in the same employ.

He must make his argument to the Washington State Supreme Court.ĭavis also assigns error to the court's ruling that Millikan is immune from suit under the Industrial Insurance Act, which removes all cases involving industrial injuries from private controversy and the jurisdiction of the courts. 8 Davis seeks a change in Washington law. 7 Further, most states align with Washington on this issue, including New York, Georgia, Missouri, Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Illinois. 6īut our decision in Brown was an expression of long-standing Washington common law dating to at least 1919, by which this court is bound. 5 He relies upon cases from Alaska, Louisiana, and Kansas. He is unimpressed by the theory that the supervising employer is in the best position to avoid negligent acts, and urges this court to apply “enterprise liability” instead of the loaned servant doctrine. 4 He argues the doctrine is illogical and allows temporary hiring agencies to escape responsibility. The court did not err in granting summary judgment to Hire Source.ĭavis criticizes the loaned servant doctrine and this court's reliance thereon in Brown v. 3 Thus, under the loaned servant doctrine, Millikan was Cadet's employee when he operated the press that injured Davis. Under the loaned servant doctrine, however, a worker in the general employ and pay of one employer may be “loaned” to another, in which case the worker becomes the employee of the temporary employer for that particular service. 1 The underlying policy is that the employer is in the best position to control the conduct of its employees and to compensate injured parties.

No. 66666–5–I Decided: May 24, 2011Īn employer is vicariously liable for injuries caused by the negligence of its employee under the principle of respondeat superior. DARIN MILLIKAN and HIRE SOURCE, INC., a corporation, and JOBS 4 U, INC., d/b/a HIRE SOURCE STAFFING, Respondents. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

Brown number press 611p